There are large differences so to get a better sense, here is the same comparison but with area log transformed.
Data split into species groups and by IUCN category ***
This plot shows the total percent of a species range map that is (1) only covered by IUCN cells, (2) only covered by AquaMaps cells and (3) covered by both IUCN and AquaMaps cells.
Here is an example of a single species, the yellow speckled chromis (Chromis alpha)
## [1] "19.52% of the total area in this map is covered by both IUCN and AquaMaps"
## [1] "3.18% of the total area in this map is covered just by AquaMaps"
## [1] "77.3% of the total area in this map is covered just by IUCN"
This plot shows that the majority of species range maps have only ~30% of their full map covered by both maps, and almost no species have more than 50% of their two ranges (IUCN and AquaMaps) overlapping.
Split up by species - not sure if this is useful or not
Looking at the percent of smaller species range that is within the larger range.
Exploring possible correlation between area and percent coverage:
## Warning: Removed 7 rows containing missing values (geom_point).
Perent coverage as function of area, clipping to area below 100,000,000 km^2:
## Warning: Removed 7 rows containing missing values (geom_point).
Percent coverage as a function of log(area)
## Warning: Removed 7 rows containing missing values (geom_point).
Examining data broken into quartiles to see if smaller patterns emerge
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
## 55760 3032000 10790000 18500000 22670000 372100000
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (geom_point).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (geom_point).
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing missing values (geom_point).
## Warning: Removed 3 rows containing missing values (geom_point).